Am 16.11.2010 22:16, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping<[email protected]>:
No, surface was meant (and is in fact used widely) to describe the surface
material of something, being it a highway, beach or whatever. There is e.g.
*no* problem to describe the surface of e.g. natural=beach with that tag.
do you see the difference between surface and landcover as described
later in this thread?
I see the same difference between surface and landuse/natural.
I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established
natural=wood / landuse=forest.
well established for what? landuse=forest is for managed forests,
natural=wood (strange enough it is not for woodland) is for
"unmanaged" natural forests. For all other trees there are currently
no tags, besides mapping them one by one.
natural=tree and (repeatingly proposed in this and other MLs) natural=trees
BTW: High trees often doesn't cover land, the grass (or bushes) below
does. How do you tag this with landcover?
Reading your new proposal page, I only see a vague definition that is in
direct conflict with landuse and natural and therefore will confuse mappers
how to tag things.
How can "physical landcover" be in conflict with landuse? Did you read
the proposal?
I've written "Reading your new proposal page ...". Did you read my mail?
Natural is IMHO an ideal example of a tag to diffuse
clarity and create confusion, because it is a mix of all sorts of
features.
It contains features that naturally appear. I am not confused.
It remains unclear under which circumstances someone
should use landcover, landuse and/or natural.
I guess you didn't read the proposal.
You are guessing wrong. I just don't think it's a good idea.
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
